Suppose that there's a method of chemical castration that is 100% reversible and has no side effects except the total (temporary) loss of libido.
Some parents will want to administer it to their children until the age of 18. (If that's not sufficiently scary, let's compare it to Ritalin, and consider that schools will actively recommend to parents that problem kids be put on it.)
How many adults (especially politically credible square types) will be willing to publicly speak out against it?
Is there any way to stop it?
(Extra credit, even though you've probably already felt the answer: should it be stopped? Remember, it's not compulsory, no one's forcing it on you or your kids. It's something other people are choosing to give to their own minor children. Why would you feel like this is your business?)
Ban it? Gosh no I'd bottle it.
ReplyDeleteOne of the original "murphy's laws," all evidently authored in the same office and probably by the same guy was "never go to bed with anyone crazier than you are." Which, if diligently followed, insures maximum frustration on all sides.
A nicer variation, though, as you've probably considered, might be "never go to bed with anyone with a higher libido than yours." (Or some fraction of your libido if you've got multiple partners.)
Anyway, the point is that since at least so far there don't seem to be very many aphrodesiacs to boost someone else's libido to match one's own, it would probably be just as suitable to reduce one's own.
Remember, your conditions on the experiment is no consequences or side effects except loss of libido. And if it's really loss of libido instead of, say, loss of ability to have orgasms (as some antidepressants do, for instance) then if you didn't have a libido I'm not sure you'd miss it either.
Anyway I think it would be a nice load balancer as long as it was voluntary and user-selected (instead of involuntarily selected for the user.)
Take care,
figleaf